2017 ORS
40.320¹

Rule 603. Oath or affirmation

(1) Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the conscience of the witness and impress the mind of the witness with the duty to do so.

(2) An oath may be administered as follows: The person who swears holds up one hand while the person administering the oath asks: “Under penalty of perjury, do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the issue (or matter) now pending between _____ and _____ shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” If the oath is administered to any other than a witness, the same form and manner may be used. The person swearing must answer in an affirmative manner.

(3) An affirmation may be administered as follows: The person who affirms holds up one hand while the person administering the affirmation asks: “Under penalty of perjury, do you promise that the evidence you shall give in the issue (or matter) now pending between _____ and _____ shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” If the affirmation is administered to any other than a witness, the same form and manner may be used. The person affirming must answer in an affirmative manner. [1981 c.892 §45]

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Evidence Code

Notes of Decisions

Where Oregon law not Washington Deadman’s Statute governed admissibility of testimony in interpleader ac­tion brought by insurance company in District of Oregon, testimony of insured’s widow and insurance agent was admissible to determine beneficiary. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. McKay, 861 F2d 221 (9th Cir. 1988)

Chapter 40

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in pro­ceed­ing governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, ma­te­ri­ally exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitu­tion. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff’d State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates min­i­mum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identifica­tion evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Cita­tions

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annota­tions are listed under the heading “Under former similar statute” if they predate the adop­tion of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each
listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals
relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.

Stay Connected

Committed to Public Service

We will always provide free access to the current law.
In addition, we provide special support
for non-profit, educational, and government users.
Through social entre­pre­neurship,
we’re lowering the cost of legal services and increasing
citizen access.